[matilda] I loved the words you wrote to me, but .... WAS

[worldwarfree at riseup.net]

The death toll of 31 days in Iraq

In this war-torn country, nobody is safe from bloodshed. In Ramadi, Kirkuk
and Basra, they count the dead as the violence worsens
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
Published: 06 February 2007

>From north to south, from east to west, violence and insecurity have
gripped the entirety of Iraq. In January alone, at least 2,000 civilians,
Iraqi security forces and US and British troops were killed in violence
across the nation.

As President George Bush dispatches an additional 21,500 combat troops ­
and at least as many again in a supporting role ­ to try to bring calm to
Baghdad, new figures suggest that violent death is becoming an everyday
occurrence across all of Iraq and in cities that rarely make the
headlines. In recent weeks places such as Kut and Mosul have reported
civilian deaths as a result of gunfire or explosions.

"There has long been this idea that if you control Baghdad you can control
the whole country, but that just does not make sense," said Nir Rosen, a
fellow at the Washington-based New America Foundation who has spent more
than two years in Iraq reporting on the violence. "Iraq has fragmented. I
don't think Baghdad has any relevance to what is happening in Kirkuk,
Mosul, Basra or Ramadi."

In December, Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, said: "I think it's
still the case that 80 per cent of the violence that we are hearing about
is taking place... in four provinces out of the 18."

Of Mr Bush's plan, Mr Rosen said: "It would not make a difference if we
sent 100,000 troops... I cannot imagine how they think they can succeed.
Americans are not the solution."

Available data suggests that Baghdad is the most perilous place in Iraq.
Just last weekend, at least 132 people were killed and more than 300
wounded when a suicide bomber detonated explosives in a lorry in the
city's Sadriya market.

But it appears that few, if any, parts of the country are safe. Indeed,
the most recent figures, collated by The New York Times, may well
underestimate the levels of violence in other parts of the country because
they rely on media reports, the Iraqi government and the US military,
which almost certainly include only a portion of the numbers killed.

Professor Richard Garfield, an epidemiologist at Columbia University and
co-author of a 2004 study which estimated that at least 100,000 Iraqis had
died since the 2003 invasion, said: "One of the myths that Washington has
been pushing is that it is pretty peaceful in Iraq and that the problems
only exist in four governates. But if you only count [casualties] in four
governates that is what you will find." He added: "There are lots of
cities with high amounts of fighting that we don't even know about."

Almost four years after the US and British invasion of Iraq, reliable
statistics on the human cost of the war remain scarce. A report, published
last October by Dr Garfield's colleagues, estimated that 655,000 civilians
and security personnel had lost their lives.

The UN High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that about two million
Iraqis ­ about 8 per cent of the pre-war population ­ have fled the
country. An additional 1.7 million people are displaced inside Iraq.

Violence continued to rock Baghdad yesterday, where an Iraqi general took
formal control of the security operation. Reports said at least 38 people
were killed in bomb and mortar attacks.

Meanwhile, the Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview
yesterday that the Bush administration does not have the vision to bring
peace.

"We're not the only player, we're not the single player. But we are the
main player in this issue," he said. "Our role is going to be through
supporting the dialogue between the different parties inside Iraq with
support from the other parties, like the Americans and any other country
in the world."